Paper 342

Journal of Global Business and Social Entrepreneurship (GBSE)
Vol. 10 : No. 28 (Jan 2024) page 19-36 | www.gbse.my | eISSN : 24621714
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TOWARDS PUBLIC

TRANSPORTATION : A CASE OF
THE MALAYSIAN TRANSPORT INDUSTRY
Dr. Foo Meow Yee
foomy@utar.edu.my
Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman
*Dr. Lee Kwee Fah

leekf@utar.edu.my
Dr. Ng Kar Yee

ngky@utar.edu.my
Andrik Nge Hau Shuen

andrik96.sg@gmail.com
Hong Jing Quan

jqhong0310@gmail.com
*Corresponding author
Abstract: Malaysia's economic growth and the growing demand for public transport for
mobility led to an increased amount of private car ownership. The rapid rise of private car
numbers and usage on the road has caused many problems such as traffic congestion and
environmental pollution. Therefore, public transportation has undoubtedly played a vital role
in solving this problem. The public transportation system in Malaysia transformed quickly,
especially in services in KTM, MRT, and LRT. Despite the progress and development in modes
of transportation, public transport usage is not encouraging and remains at a low level. This
research used the convenience sampling technique, and two hundred usable response samples
were drawn from the public respondents. Partial Least Squares analysis was used to test the
hypotheses of this study in the first stage. The adequacy of the measurement model was
assessed, followed by the examination of the structural relationship in the second stage. The
results revealed a significant relationship between reliability, accessibility, price, and safety
& security towards customer satisfaction with public transportation. These research findings
provide insights for professional organizations, regulators, and legislators to promote public
transport usage further.
Keywords: public transport, customer satisfaction, transport cost, safety and security,
accessibility, reliability
2024 JGBSE
Article Received : 01 January 2024, Revised: 08 January 2024, Accepted 18 January 2024
INTRODUCTION
In the research by Irtema, Ismail, Borhan, Das and Alshetwi (2018), the World Bank reported
that Malaysia had undergone significant economic and social transformations. Transportation
services will be one of the strategic components in economic development, either macro or
19
micro. It promotes dynamic people mobility and goods through transportation services
(Suryawardani, 2020).
Rapid economic growth and development consequently lead to a significant increase in the
ownership of private cars in Malaysia. According to the Malaysian Automotive Association
(MAA, 2017), the total number of on-the-road registered vehicles increased sharply from 12.2
million in 2003 to 28.2 million in 2017. Factors that contribute to the increase in private car
ownership include an increase in personal income (Yazid et al., 2011), people prefer to self-
drive than take public transport (Ismail & Hafezi, 2011), and society’s perception of someone
owns a car means he has higher socioeconomic status (Lim & Lee, 2012; Shariff, 2012).
The exponential growth of the private car numbers and usage on the road has not only caused
problems such as traffic congestion (Kamaruddin, 2012; Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan, 2017)
and environmental pollution (such as high carbon dioxide emission per capita) it also indicates
a lower use of public transport (Senbil, Kitamuara & Mohamad, 2009; Lee & Cheah, 2015).
Kari and Rasiah (2008) argue that the local authority failed to formulate effective government
policies that endorse clean transportation. Other researchers like Hwe, Cheung and Wan (2006)
and Ismail and Hafezi (2011) suggest that the local authorities must encourage people to take
public transport and not self-drive to reduce traffic jams and pollution.
Therefore, increasing public transportation usage is one solution to reducing the number of cars
on the road. The Malaysian government has invested heavily in transforming the public
transportation system, especially in the bus and train services operating in Klang Valley.
Currently, the types of public transport available in Klang Valley include monorail, light rail
transit (LRT), mass rapid transit (MRT), commuter train, taxi, and bus. These services are
mainly managed by two leading operators, Syarikat Prasarana Negara Berhad (Prasarana),
which operates rail transportation. Meanwhile, RapidKL runs the bus services.
Despite the progress and development in improving the country's public transport system;
several studies find that the rate of public transport usage is less encouraging and remains low
(Almselati et al., 2011; Borhan, Ibrahim, Syamsunurand & Rahmat, 2019). These studies were
echoed by the evidence reported in Transport Statistics Malaysia (2013), there is less than 10%
of Malaysians used public transport nationwide.
The government launched the National Transport Policy (NTP) 2019 – 2030 on 17 October
2019 and aims to achieve 40% of public transportation usage within the next ten years. The
focus of the NTP is to encourage Malaysian to use public transport and to increase the
efficiency of various transportation networks in the country. In addition, the government has
introduced initiatives such as unlimited travel passes for My100 and My50, which benefits
consumers who use public transport.
Apart from the cost of taking public transport, customer dissatisfaction towards the services
provided by the public transport is the main reason of low usage. The inefficiency of public
transport, such as punctuality/ delayed arrival time; bad connectivity between areas, no direct
access to the public transport, and congestion in train coaches contribute to customer
dissatisfaction (Nagy & Csiszár, 2015; Cao et al., 2020; Abdulrazzaq et al., 2020).
As explained above the level of customer (dis)satisfaction will lead to their willingness of using
the public transport, thus, the objective of this study is twofolds. Firstly, this empirical study
aims to examine the level of customer’s satisfaction towards Malaysian public transport
system. Secondly, this study attempts to identify the primary drivers that could promote
20
awareness, change in attitudes, and enhance customer satisfaction by switching using public
transport than driving a private car among public passengers.
This study selects 200 public respondents conveniently and employs the partial least squares
estimation technique to test the hypotheses set for this study. Firstly, the study assessed the
adequacy of the measurement model. Then, the analysis proceeds to examine the structural
relationship among the variables. The estimation results revealed a significant relationship
between the independent variables (reliability, accessibility, price, and safety & security) and
customer satisfaction with public transportation.
There are ﬁve sections in this study; the first section starts with the introduction and background
of this study, followed by the insight of the literature review in section two. Section three
presents the research methodology, and the survey results and ﬁndings of this study shall be
elaborated in section four. Lastly, the discussion on the practical implications, limitations, and
recommendations for future research concluded the study's contribution.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Customer Satisfaction
Customers are individuals who purchase the products or services from a firm/ business (Mamo,
2018). Customers make their purchase decisions if they perceive the functions/ features of the
product meet their expectation. After using the product or service, the custormer will evaluate
and provide feedback on the performance of the purchased products/ services. Olier (2010)
describes this feedback as the customer’s satisfaction. Customers satisfy with the product/
service if the performance meet their expectation (Edvardsson, 1998; Wilson & Zeithaml,
2012). In other words, dissatisfaction reflects customers’ bad state of mind when the purchased
item did not meet their needs and expectations (Hoyer & Maclnnis, 2004; Ong et al., 2015).
Studies find several factors that significantly affect the customer’s satisfaction on a product or
service. One of them is the perception of other customers (a.k.a. word-of-mouth) can influence
one’s satisfaction on the product or service they purchased (Martin & Pranter, 1989; Wilson &
Zeithaml, 2012). For instance, customers who show good attitude will create a positive
atmosphere in the shop and encourage the transactions at the time.
Furthermore, Bitner (1990) and Irtema et al. (2018) point out that the employees play an
important role in ensuring the expectation of customers are met. They argue that the services
extended by the employees, such as a pleasant smile and greetings to walk-in customers will
impress the customers. Likewise, impolite staff or unpleasant attitude will push away a
potential customer before they even try out the product.
There is a growing body of literature that attempt to shed light on the factors influencing the
customers’ satisfaction level towards public transport services. Among the studies, Hensher
(2007), Thompson and Schofield (2007), Fellesson and Friman (2012), Efthymiou, Antoniou,
Tyrinopoulos and Skaltsogianni (2017) concluded that service reliability, frequency, behavior
of the driver, information provided, cleanliness, and comfort are important factors that affect
the customers’ satisfaction level on the public transport. The empirical findings were supported
by other studies conducted by Friman and Garling (2001), Beirao and Cabral (2007) and Eboli
and Mazulla (2012). Most of the studies collect cross sectional samples from various cities to
make a comparison between different types of public transport operating in the selected
locations.
21
Price
Several studies define price as the monetary amount or sum of values paid by customer to
exchange for a product or service (Zeithaml, 1998; Kotler & Armstrong, 2012). Price can be
divided into three components: objective price, perceived non-monetary price and sacrifice.
The objective price refers to the monetary amount that customer paid. Meanwhile, perceived
non-monetary price which relates to the price encoded by customer (Jacob & Olsen, 1997)
based on their meaningfulness rather than the actual amount charged (Zeithaml, 1982,1984;
Dickson & Sawyer, 1986). In other words, the price encoded by customers reflect their
willingness to pay for that particular product or service. As such, the intention to purchase a
product will depend on their affordability – the ability of them to pay ((Isalou, Litman, &
Shahmoradi, 2014). Armstrong-Wright and Thiriez (1987) discovered that low income
commuters would select the transport mode they can afford to reduce travel costs.
However, there are some recent debates in transportation pricing and finance for decision-
makers searching for a fair price for transportation. (Taylor, & Tassiello Norton, 2009). These
researchers proved improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of transportation systems
were objected to on equity grounds through distance, time-based transit fares, or congestion
pricing. In contrast, Andreassen (1995) found that ticket price is significantly affecting
customer satisfaction towards public transport. This study pointed out commuters are
dissatisfied with the public transport due to there are no standard fares for most routes. Oh
(2000) made a similar conclusion as the study finds that price is positively influencing
customers’ buying intention and their satisfaction towards the public transport.
Perceptions of consumers can be influenced by price reasonableness (Razak, Nirwanto, &
Triatmanto, 2016). According to Xia et al. (2004), consumers gauge the fairness of price based
on the tolerability, appropriateness and rationality of the offered price. Generally, previous
research shows that price strongly and significantly affects consumer satisfaction in different
sectors (Razak et al, 2016; Hanif, Hafeez, & Riaz, 2010; Herrmann, Xia, Monroe, & Huber,
2007). Hence, it is proposed that:
H1: Price and satisfaction with public transportation are significantly related.
Safety and Security
According to Pietre and Chaudet (2010), there is safety when the surroundings are not
dangerous, do not injure, or cause loss to a person either purposefully or accidentally. As for
security, it is described as the situation which is risk free, not threatening, and no theft resulting
from deliberate acts. In a similar Matsika, Ricci, Mortimer, Georgiev, and O’Neill (2013)
stressed that safety is the protection from unintended breakdowns in the system. Meanwhile,
security refers to the process of decreasing the bad outcomes of purposeful violations of the
system. The descriptions above suggest that people may face difficulties to identify the risks
or crimes encountered in their daily lives from the viewpoint of public transportation policy
(Borjesson, 2012).
Numerous authors such as Nurdden et al. (2007), Smith and Clarke (2000) and Cozen et al.
(2007) noted that people consider safety and security as vital when choosing between
alternative modes of travel. Commuters have concerns over nasty incidents while taking public
transport, for example pickpockets, vandalism and absence of supervisory control.
22
A survey of Petaling Jaya city revealed that out of 73.4 per cent responses, just 2.7 per cent
agreed on the safetiness of travelling via public transportation in this locality (Ibrahim &
Karim, 2013). The rest of the responses indicated the frequent occurences of robberies and
snatch thefts at their housing areas. These types of criminal activities discourage people from
taking public transport.
Studies by other researchers also pointed out that trip safety and comfort impacted satisfaction
level of passengers (Oliver, 1997; Chen & Gursoy, 2001; Adris et al., 2014; Agarwal, 2016).
Furthermore, studies have also shown that public transport’s female commuters tend to be more
worried over safety and security. This is corroborated by the study of Nurdden et al. (2007)
which demonstrated that females’ extent of satisfaction with public transport was closely
associated with safety concerns. Findings of another research show that in countries with
gender inequality, women tend to be less satisfied with public transport (Dunckel, 2013). It
could be due to the likelihood of being sexually harassed and facing aggressive behaviours in
daily commute in addition to overcrowding in public transportations.
Several past research provided support for safety and security as being linked with passenger
satisfaction with public transport (Agarwal, 2016; Adris et al, 2014; Oliver, 1997). Therefore,
it is hypothesized that:
H2: Safety and security have significant associations with satisfaction of using public transport.
Accessibility
The definition for accessibility had been proposed by a number of writers. According to
Miralles-Guasch and Cebollada (2003) as well as Geurs and van Eck (2001), accessibility
refers to a smoother way to reach a destination through the use of one or more combined modes
of transportation. Additionally, Lattman et al. (2016) explained the inter-relationship between
accessibility and mobility. Accessibility can be measured using the time taken for travel or
distance between places. Some behaviour such as change the schedule and move stations may
inadvertently reduce the mobility for certain individuals, resulting in them feeling socially
excluded (Kenyon & Lyons, 2003). Geurs and Van Wee (2004) observed that personal traits
like physical attributes and age may also result in spaciotemporal limitations. Thus, the higher
the ease and convenience of commuting between stations, the greater the satisfaction level of
the passenger (Brons, Givoni, & Rietveld, 2009; Coffel, 1995).
Accessibility of the general system of transportation is very important to get satisfied
customers. It has been noted that accessibility can contribute to improved satisfaction among
frequent commuters of public transportation (Woldeamanuel & Cyganski, 2011).
“Convenience of stop” has been argued as a factor of accessibility which assesses individual
satisfaction of travelling on public transportations (Burke, 2014). In contrast, other authors
disagree that commuters use “convenient stop” to evaluate public transportation systems
(Woldeamanuel & Cyganski, 2011).
Other researchers found that accessibility could partly impact passenger satisfaction (Brons,
Givoni, and Rietveld (2009). Easy transition from one stop to another can improve commuter
satisfaction (Coffel, 1995). Several other research investigated various sectors and situations
(Jannang & Jabid, 2016; Givoni & Rietveld, 2007; Woldeamanuel & Cyganski, 2012). The
findings empirically support the linkage of accessibility with passenger satisfaction. For public
23
transportation, in particular, Chowdhury et al. (2016) discovered that commuters’ satisfaction

was significantly influenced by accessibility. As such, it is suggested that:
H3: Accessibility and satisfaction with public transportation are significantly related.
Reliability
Reliability has been described by previous researchers including Parasuraman et al. (1988),
Kotler (1996) as well as Zeithaml and Bitner (2003). It is the capability to deliver consistent,
dependable and exact service as assured to the customer. Similarly, Churchill and Peter (1999)
stressed that reliability is about giving consistent and predictable service which follows
consumers’ request. As a result, reliability falls under service quality to customers. In a
situation where a customer encounters a bad experience using the technology for the first time,
he or she will refuse to use the service again. Therefore, the service provider should render
services that have useful functions, orderly procedures and good service delivery to enhance
reliability which in turn contributes to raising customers’ trust in the service (Brady et al.,
2009).
Reliability and time taken for the trip are crucial in affecting people’s decision to use public
transport (Borhan et al., 2017). Reliability contains several parts including period of waiting,
punctual and regular service among others. For example, some researchers demonstrated that
punctuality of the public transportation satisfies commuters (Friman, 2004; Bielen &
Demoulin, 2007). Commuters prefer to get early notifications of any delays in order for them
to modify their plans due to the longer waiting period. Anyhow, consistent on-time arrivals and
departures of public transportations will improve commuter satisfaction.
Findings from a number of other studies show that reliability and length of trip time hold an
important role that influences people’s preference for different transport mode (Beirao &
Cabral, 2007; Cools, Moons, Janssens & Wets, 2009; Santoso, Yajima, Sakamoto & Kubota,
2012). Commuters will be more satisfied and confident when the public transportation service
is consistently and reliably delivered. On the contrary, dissatisfactions caused by lousy service
will chase away commuters. One study found a lot of individuals choose to travel by rail mode
due to the automated services that are more consistent compared with manual services (Narteh,
2013). Furthermore, less mistakes are made by automatic services as opposed to services run
manually by people, hence resulting in better reliability.
In research by Eboli and Mazzulla (2008) and Borhan, Syamsunur, Mohd Akhir, Mat Yazid,
Ismail, and Rahmat (2014) studied how the attributes of service quality impacted the
satisfaction of customers. Reliability was an attribute included in the total 16 attributes that
were examined. Together with other attributes, reliability was shown to be one of the main
factors that contributed to the satisfaction of commuters who had travelled on public buses.
However, Ong et al. (2015) found that reliability is not correlated with customer satisfaction.
Other researchers investigated a few cities in Europe, and concluded that travellers’ level of
satisfaction varies as it depends on the transport mode utilized (Fellesson & Friman, 2012).
24
Following from the studies discussed above, it is proposed that:

H4: Reliability and satisfaction with public transportation are significantly related.
Figure 1. Conceptual Model
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study used a set of structured self-administered questionnaires for data collection.
Quantitative research was employed for this study. The questionnaire is divided into 3 sections
comprising of general information, respondents’ demographics and the question items. In the
third section, the participants indicated their level of agreement via a five-point Likert scale
from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
Data Collection
Convenience sampling method was employed in this study. Two hundred and twenty sets of
questionnaires in English were handed out to the targeted respondents comprising of frequent
commuters of public transportation residing in Klang Valley. After data collection, the
questionnaires were screened for incomplete responses. Finally, only 200 sets were deemed
useable for data analysis.
Assessment of Measures and Path Modelling
For descriptive data analysis, SPSS version 27 was used. This is followed by using SmartPLS
3 (Ringle, Wende, & Becker, 2015). As recommended by Chin (2010), the two-step procedure
was used to test the integrity of measures. Firstly, assessments are conducted to confirm that
the model being measured is valid. They include assessing the reliability, convergent and
25
discriminant validity. This is followed by the examination of the structural model. In this step,
the pathway relations between constructs are tested for their direction and strength.
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Demographic Profile
Two hundred total responses were gathered including several demographic details of the
respondents. Majority of them were females (113 replies, 56.5%). The balance were male
respondents (87 replies; 43.5%).
Responses to general questions regarding public transportation normally taken show that
mostly took the MRT (175 responses; 87.5%). Next often used are taking the bus (61%), KTM
(41%), LRT (37.5%) and monorail (10.5%) with 122, 82, 75 and 21 responses respectively.
The main reasons for self-driving instead of using public transport, most of the respondents
indicated convenience with 89 responses (84%), followed by saving time 92 responses
(87.0%), Reliable was 43 responses (41%) and did not have any public transport nearby 14
responses (13.2 %.
Respondents were also asked about their reasons for commuting on public transport. Leisure
is the top reason given with 166 replies or 83%. Second top reason (83 replies) is to go to
school (41.5%). Thirdly, for returning to hometown with 62 replies (31%) and lastly for other
purposes with 9 replies (4.5%). Another question to the respondents asked about the reason for
their preference to take public transport. It was found that a majority of 80% stated not owning
a car with 75 replies. The second most given answer (75.5%) was due to lower price with 71
replies. This is followed by 66% stating convenience, 51% wanted to avoid traffic jams and
1% for other reasons with 62, 48 and 1 response respectively. The summarized demographic
details can be seen in table 1.
Table 1: Summary of the Demographic Profile
Gender Frequency Percent
Male 87 43.5
Female 113 56.5
Type of public transport do you usually travel with Frequency Percent
Bus 122 61
MRT 175 87.5
LRT 75 37.5
Monorail 21 10.5
KTM 82 41
The purpose using public transport Frequency Percent
School 83 41.5
Work 66 33
Leisure 166 83
Back hometown 62 31
Others 9 4.5
Reason for self-driving versus public transport Frequency Percent
Convenience 89 84
Save time 92 87
Reliable 43 41
26
Does not have any public transport nearby 14 13.2

Others 1 1
Reasons using public transport instead of self-
driving Frequency Percent
Convenience 62 66
Lower in price 71 75.5
Avoid traffic 48 51
Does not own a car 75 80
Others 2 1
Inferential Analysis - Measurement Model Evaluation

Reliability
Composite reliabilities (CR) and Cronbach’s alphas (CA) were utilized to test for the reliability
of the constructs. The lower bound value for CA is 0.60 (Nunnally & Berstein, 1994). For CR,
the guideline states values ranging from zero to one and that larger numbers indicate more
reliability. In comparison with CA, CR is a stricter form of measurement for internal consistent
reliability of any construct (Chin, 1998).
All values of CA are higher than 0.60 and CR values range from 0.850 to 0.915 in table 2. This
shows that the numbers are all more than the lower bound threshold of 0.60 and 0.70
respectively. Therefore, the results indicate that for each construct, there is high internal
consistency reliability (Nunnally, 1978).
Table 2: Construct Reliability and Validity
Average
Model Measurement Cronbach’s Composite Variance
Loading
Construct Item Alpha Reliability Extracted
(AVE)
Price Price 1 0.829 0.831 0.887 0.664
Price 2 0.710
Price 3 0.890
Price 4 0.820
Security and SC & SF 1 0.805 0.736 0.850 0.654
safety SC & SF 2 0.860
SC & SF 3 0.758
Accessibility Access 3 0.774 0.770 0.852 0.590
Access 4 0.791
Access 5 0.768
Access 6 0.738
Reliability Reliab 4 0.868 0.685 0.864 0.760
Reliab 5 0.876
Customer c.service 4 0.711 0.882 0.915 0.683
satisfaction c.service 5 0.879
c.service 6 0.881
c.service 7 0.836
c.service 8 0.815
27
Convergent Validity
The average variance extracted (AVE) values are used to test for convergence validiy of every
construct. Table 1 displays the AVE results which show everything is more than the lower limit
of 0.50. Hence it confirms the convergent validity of the individual constructs in the model
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). It means that the question items used for pricing, safety and security,
accessibility, reliability as well as customer satisfaction constructs all validly measure their
own construct. They are basing on the estimated parameters and significant statistically due to
p-values of less than 0.05.
Discriminant Validity
Three conditions must be tested to establish the presence of discriminant validity among the
different model constructs. First is cross loading, second AVE square roots, and thirdly
heterotrait monotrait ratio (HTMT). Looking at table 3, each of the measurement item has
higher loading with their corresponding construct than others. Additionally, the loading of
every block that measures the same construct is greater than its loadings with other blocks
under the same row and column. As such, discriminant validity of each construct with other
constructs in the model is statistically confirmed.
Table 3: Cross Loadings
Security Customer
Price Accessibility Reliability
and safety satisfaction
Price 1 0.829 0.364 0.391 0.236 0.422
Price 2 0.710 0.259 0.340 0.200 0.343
Price 3 0.890 0.382 0.446 0.305 0.520
Price 4 0.820 0.362 0.459 0.297 0.497
SC & SF 1 0.316 0.805 0.222 0.273 0.380
SC & SF 2 0.318 0.860 0.205 0.185 0.380
SC & SF 3 0.381 0.758 0.367 0.255 0.465
Access 3 0.439 0.217 0.774 0.218 0.416
Access 4 0.452 0.262 0.791 0.221 0.444
Access 5 0.316 0.242 0.768 0.151 0.366
Access 6 0.323 0.337 0.738 0.178 0.319
Reliab 4 0.264 0.246 0.214 0.868 0.405
Reliab 5 0.301 0.272 0.227 0.876 0.416
c.service 4 0.452 0.437 0.416 0.316 0.711
c.service 5 0.478 0.449 0.430 0.375 0.879
c.service 6 0.467 0.391 0.390 0.406 0.881
c.service 7 0.474 0.398 0.417 0.417 0.836
c.service 8 0.421 0.440 0.447 0.424 0.815
Secondly, in accordance with the Fornell and Larcker (1981) guideline, each construct must
have a higher AVE square root value than its corresponding value with other constructs. Table
4 shows that the off-diagonal cell values are less than the AVE square root on the diagonal
cells. Hence, there are statistics supporting adequate discriminant validity between the model
constructs.
28
Table 4: Discriminant Validity

Security Customer
Price 0.815
Security and
0.424 0.809
safety
Accessibility 0.506 0.338 0.768
Reliability 0.324 0.297 0.253 0.872
Customer
0.555 0.513 0.509 0.471 0.827
satisfaction
Finally, discriminant validity is assessed using the HTMT criterion (Henseler et al, 2015). This
is the most recent method to test whether two constructs are truly correlated. Based on the
guideline by Henseler and colleagues (2015), the cutoff upper limit is 0.90. Any value below
0.90 supports adequate discriminant validity between constructs. As shown in table 5, all values
meet this HTMT criterion. Therefore, discriminant validity between the constructs is
supported.
Table 5: Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)
Security Customer
Price 0.616 0.639
Security and
0.529 0.442 0.414 0.626
safety
Accessibility
Reliability 0.422 0.343 0.605
Customer
0.609
satisfaction
Structural Model Evaluation

The two measures, model relationships and predictive relevance are used to evaluate the
structural model. The results shown there are significants relationships between the
independent variables for price, security & safety, accessibility and reliability and the
dependent variables, that is customer satisfaction towards the public transport. It could be
supported with the path coefficients ranging from 0.234 to 0.257 shown in Table 7 and Figure
2. Thus, H1, H2, H3 and H4 are statistically significant at P < 0.05 to conclude that all these
hypotheses are supported.
The coefficient of determination (R2) is used to examine the predictive relevance. The
measurement for R2 can be ranged from 0 to 1, it shows higher level of the value accuracy
where the higher values specifying a higher level of accuracy. According to Table 8, the R2 for
Customer Satisfaction is 0.506. This value shown that 50.6 % of the customer satisfaction can
be expounded by the four independent variables: price, security and safety, accessibility, and
reliability. The research model explains significant variance in Customer Satisfaction, as
supported by statistical findings. In the field of consumer behavior (Hair et al., 2014).
29
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The findings highlight the significance of reliability, accessibility, price, safety, and security
for customer satisfaction with public transport (Friman & Fellesson, 2009). Local authorities
and policymakers have recognised these issues and have ensured safety, accessibility,
punctuality, and passenger convenience. By enhancing service quality and value, promoting
public transport usage can help address congestion and environmental pollution issues
(Dahalan, Silva, Abdullah, Ismail, & Ahmad, 2015).
Recent reports, such as the Land Public Transport Commission report in 2017, indicate an
increase in the customer satisfaction index (CSI) of 6 % if compared with the previous year. It
reflects a rise in usage, with public transportation becoming a primary mode for daily activities.
According to Transport Statistics Malaysia (2017), the average daily rail and bus ridership also
increased. The shift from private cars to public transportation is evident (Abdulrazzaq,
Abdulkareem, Yazid, Borhan, & Mahdi, 2020).
The findings have practical implications for policymakers and private service providers. It is
essential to further improve reliability by ensuring on-time arrival and regular maintenance
schedules. Coordinated integration between different modes of transportation and the
availability of feeder services can enhance accessibility. Thus, the authority should develop
more options for routes, and increase quality and stations to encourage and promote public
transport usage.
Besides focusing on accessibility and reliability, the public's top priority when using public
transportation is affordable fares between stations. There will be a trade-off between using
public transport and self-driving for those environmentally conscious passengers to avoid
issues such as crowding, scheduling, and pollution. In order to improve customer satisfaction,
it is crucial to have reasonable fare. Nowadays, most customers consider their options and gain
value for money kind of purchases. Customer satisfaction will rise if the fee paid for public
transport is tallied with the service performance and travelling distance from the origin to the
destination.
To take care of children and elderly passengers, the policymakers and the transport companies
could explore the tier fares policy, monthly, half yearly or yearly fares with special rebates and
discounts strategy for advance commitment. These measures can incentivise long-term usage.
Another crucial factor is enhancing passenger safety and security at terminals and throughout
the travel route. Authorities must ensure safety while passengers wait and journey from one
stop to their final destination. Engaging trained and skilled drivers is crucial to minimise the
likelihood of accidents. The authority must ensure the implementation of the safety rules and
regulations and control the speed limits to ensure the safety of the passengers when they travel
with public transport.
CCTV surveillance monitors passengers at stations and inside vehicles to prevent theft and
reduce pick-pocketing incidents. However, research by Ahmad and Aziz (2012) has shown that
public transportation safety levels still need improvement based on accident statistics and
reports. Relevant authorities must ensure proper safety regulations and enforcement for road
safety to minimise the possibility of road accidents and fatalities to encourage public transport
usage.
The National Transport Policy 2019-2030 blueprint states that a single entity is responsible for
coordinating road and transport safety matters.
30
Extensive investment in the overall infrastructure and regulatory frameworks are needed not
only to position Malaysia as a regional distribution hub and growth in the transportation sector.
It is also part of the strategy for corporate social responsibility from the relevant authorities and
transport companies to ensure public safety, benefit and accessibility to public transport.
Therefore, continuous long-term planning by the national government is essential to establish
a "bright, linked, useful, and safe" transport network for Malaysia.
However, it is essential to acknowledge the limitations of this study. Several limitations have
been identified and discussed below. It would be beneficial to incorporate a mixed-method
approach involving qualitative methods to capture different opinions beyond the options
provided in the questionnaire. Furthermore, the framework could be expanded to include
additional constructs and practice dimensions, making it more comprehensive. Lastly, the study
measured the variables simultaneously, while performance variables are subject to potential
changes over time.
Based on the findings, the researcher would like to recommend future studies in holistic travel
demand management that will bring up the efficiency and reliability of public transport. Further
investigation in particular areas and hours on public transport utilisation remains "below
target." Besides the findings, what are other drivers that lead to the reluctance to switch from
private vehicles to public transport? There needs to be more literature in this area. Future
research could consider using more in-depth moderators and investigating specific constructs
from different perspectives.
REFERENCES
Abdulrazzaq, L. R., Abdulkareem, M. N., Yazid, M. R. M., Borhan, M. N., & Mahdi, M. S.
(2020). Traffic congestion: Shift from private car to public transportation. Civil
Engineering Journal, 6(8), 1547-1554.
Adris A, Putra1Jinca M, Yamin Bambang Riyanto, Agus Taufik Mulyono . (2014). The
Satisfaction Analysis for the Performance of Public Transport Urban Areas
International. Refereed Journal ofEngineering and Science, 3(8), 38-44.
Agarwal, R. (2016). Public Transportation and Customer Satisfaction: The Case of Indian
Railways. Retrieved from Global Business Review, 9, 257–272:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/097215090800900206
Ahmad, S. N., & Aziz, Z. (2012). The safety level of public transportation in Malaysia (Kuala
Lumpur).
Almselati, A.S.I., Rahmat, R.A.O.K., Jaafar, O., 2011. An overview of urban transport in
Malaysia. Social Sci. 6 (1), 24–33.
Andreassen, T. W. (1995). Customer (Dis) satisfaction with public service: The case of public
transportation. Journal of services marketing, 9(5), 30-41.
Armstrong-Wright, A., & Thiriez, S. (1987). Bus services: reducing costs, raising standards.
Beirao, G., Cabral, J. A. S. (2007). Understanding attitudes towards public transport and
private car: A qualitative study. Retrieved from Transport Policy. 14, pp. 478–489:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.04.009
Bielen, F., & Demoulin, N. (2007). Waiting time influence on the satisfaction-loyalty
relationship in services. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 174-193.
Bitner, M. (1990). Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and
Employee Responses. Journal of Marketing, 69-69.
31
Borhan, M. N., Syamsunur, D., Mohd Akhir, N., Mat Yazid, M. R., Ismail, A., & Rahmat, R.
A. (2014). Predicting the use of public transportation: a case study from Putrajaya,
Malaysia. The Scientific World Journal, 2014.
Borhan, M. N., Ibrahim, A. N. H., Miskeen, M. A. A., Rahmat, R. A. O., & Alhodairi, A. M.
(2017). Predicting car drivers’ intention to use low cost airlines for intercity travel in
Libya. Journal of Air Transport Management, 65, 88-98.
Borhan, M. N., Ibrahim, A. N. H., Syamsunur, D., & Rahmat, R. A. (2019). Why public bus is
a less attractive mode of transport: A case study of Putrajaya, Malaysia. Periodica
Polytechnica Transportation Engineering, 47(1), 82-90.
Börjesson, M. (2012). Valuing Perceived Insecurity Associated With Use of And Access To
Public Transport. Transport Policy, 22, 1-10
Brady, S., Kearsey, K., Monigatti, M., Sindel, T., & Tsui-Po, N. (2009). Customer service
excellence in the self-service public library. Australia: State Library of Victoria.
Brons, M., Givoni, M., & Rietveld, P. (2009). Access to railway stations and its potential in
increasing rail use. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(2), 136-
149.
Burke, B. (2014). Letter to Barry L. Kluger, Inspector General, Metropolitan Transportation
Authority. Kluger, Inspector General, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (April
16, 2014).
Cao, Z., Guo, H., Song, W., Gao, K., Chen, Z., Zhang, L., & Zhang, X. (2020). Using
reinforcement learning to minimize the probability of delay occurrence in
transportation. IEEE transactions on vehicular technology, 69(3), 2424-2436.
Chen, J.S., Gursoy, D. (2001). An investigation of tourists’ destination loyalty and preferences.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(2) , 79-85.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation
modeling. Modern methods for business research, 295(2), 295-336.
Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. Esposio Vinzi, W. W.
Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares (pp. 655–
690). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8
Chowdhury, S., Zhai, K., & Khan, A. (2016). The effects of access and accessibility on public
transport users’ attitudes. Journal of public Transportation, 19(1), 7.
Churchill Jr, G. A. J., & Peter, P.(1999). Marketing: creating value for customers. In Library
of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data.
Coffel, K. (1995). Customer satisfaction index for the mass transit industry. TRANSIT-IDEA
Program Project Final Report 10.
Cools, M., Moons, E., Janssens, B., Wets, G. (2009). Shifting towards environment-friendly
modes: travellers using Q-methodology. Retrieved from Transportation. 36, pp. 437-
453: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-009-9206-z
Cozens, P., Neale, R., Whitaker, J., & Hillier, D. (2003). Managing crime and the fear of crime
at railway stations––a case study in South Wales (UK). International Journal of
Transport Management, 1(3), 121-132.
Dahalan, D., D’Silva, J. L., Abdullah, H., Ismail, I. A., & Ahmad, N. (2015). Youth confidence
in the quality of public transport services: The case of Greater KL,
Malaysia. Geografia, 11(9).
Dickson, P. R., & Sawyer, A. G. (1986). Methods to Research Shoppers' Knowledge of
Supermarket Prices. Advances in Consumer Research Volume 13, 584-588.
Dunckel-Graglia, A. (2013). Dunckel-GragWomen-Only Transportation: How “Pink” Public
Transportation Changes Public Perception of Women’s Mobility. Journal of Public
Transportation, 16(2), 85-106.
32
Eboli, L., Mazzula, G. (2008). A Stated Preference Experiment Customer Satisfaction for Bus
Transit. Journal of Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol.31, No.5, 23-509.
Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2012). Performance indicators for an objective measure of public
transport service.
Edvardson, B. (1998). Causes of customer dissatisfaction – studies of public transport by the
critical-incident method. Managing Service Quality. 8 (3), 189-197.
Edvardsson, B. (1998). Service quality improvement, Managing Service Quality. An
International Journal, 8:142-149.
Fellesson, M., & Friman, M. (2012). Perceived satisfaction with public transport service in nine
European cities. Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, 47(3), 99-103.
Efthymiou, D., Antoniou, C., Tyrinopoulos, Y., & Skaltsogianni, E. (2017). Factors affecting
bus users’ satisfaction in times of economic crisis. Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice.
Friman, M., & Garling, T. (2001). Frequency of negative critical incidents and satisfaction with
public transport services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8(2), 105-114.
Friman, M. (2004). Implementing quality improvements in public transport. Journal of Public
transportation, 7(4), 3.
Friman, M., & Fellesson, M. (2009). Customer satisfaction. Service supply and customer
satisfaction in public transport: The quality paradox. Journal of Public Transportation.
Geurs, K., & Ritsema van Eck, J. (2001). Accessibility measures: Review and applications.
Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use transportation scenarios, and related
social and economic impact. Utrecht, the Netherlands: RIVM.
Geurs, K., & Van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies:
Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), 127-140.
Givoni, M., & Rietveld, P. (2007). The access journey to the railway station and its role in
passengers' satisfaction with rail travel. Transport policy 14, 357-365.
Hanif, M., Hafeez, S., Riaz, A. (2010). Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction. International
Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 45-52.
Hensher, D. A. (2007). Bus transport: Economics, policy and planning. Resesarch in
Transportation Economics Vol. 18. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Herrmann, A., Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Huber, F. (2007). The influence of price fairness on
customer satisfaction: an empirical test in the context of automobile purchases. Journal
of Product & Brand Management, 49-58.
Hoyer, W. D., & Maclnnis, D. J. (2004). Consumer Behavior 3rd ed. New York: Houghton
Mifflin.
Hwe, S.K., R.K. Cheung and Y.w. Wan. (2006). Merging bus routes in Hong Kong's central
business district: Analysis and models. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 40(10): 918-935.
Ibrahim, N.I., Adiji, B.M., and Karim, M.R. (2013). Public Transport Passengers’ Perception
and Demand Satisfaction: A Case Study At Petaling Jaya Municipal District, Malaysia.
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 9, 1-13.
Irtema, H. I. M., Ismail, A., Borhan, M. N., Abdelsalam, H. M., Alshetwi, A. B., Albrka, S. I.,
& Das, A. M. (2018). Perceptions Passengers on Service Quality: Public Transport in
Kuala Lumpur. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(2.29), 865-870.
Irtema, H. I. M., Ismail, A., Borhan, M. N., Das, A. M., & Alshetwi, A. B. (2018). "Case study
of the behavioural intentions of public transportation passengers in Kuala Lumpur."
Case Studies on Transport Policy, 6(4), 6(4): 462-474.
Isalou, A. A., Litman, T., & Shahmoradi, B. (2014). Testing the housing and transportation
affordability index in a developing world context: A sustainability comparison of
central and suburban districts in Qom, Iran. Transport policy, 33-39.
33
Ismail, A. and M.H. Hafezi. (2011). Analyzing of Bus Operation to Obtain Regular Frequency
for Neomission. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(11): 1275-1284.
Jacob, J., & Olson, J. C. (1997). Consumer Response to Price: Attitudinal, Information
Processing Perspective. Chicago: College of Business Administration, Pennsylvania
State University.
Jannang, A. R., & Jabid, A. W. (2016). Effect of Servqual and Accessibility on Customer
Loyalty Through Customer Satisfaction. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences, 275-281.
Kari, F., Rasiah, R., 2008. Automobile emissions and the environment: the Malaysian
experience. In: Making Choices About Hydrogen: Transport Issues for Developing
Countries, 234.
Kamaruddin, R., Osman, I., & Pei, C. A. C. (2012). Public transport services in klang valley:
customer expectations and its relationship using SEM. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 36, 431-438.
Kenyon, S., & Lyons, G. (2003). The value of integrated multimodal traveller information and
its potential contribution to modal change. Transportation Research Part F, 1-21.
Kotler, P. (1996). Marketing Management. 7 Edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2012). Marketing Management 14th Edition. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan, 2020. http://www.dbkl.gov.my/pskl2020/english/index.
htm (12.07.2017).
Lattman, K., Friman, M., & Olsson, L. (2016). Perceived Accessibility of Public Transport as
a Potential Indicator of Social Inclusion. Social Inclusion, 36-45.
Lee, L. Y., & Cheah, Y. K. (2015). The determinants of car ownership among working adults
in Penang, Malaysia. Malaysian Management Journal, 19, 37-49.
Lim, S., & Lee, K. T. (2012). Implementation of biofuels in Malaysian transportation sector
towards sustainable development: A case study of international cooperation between
Malaysia and Japan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(4), 1790-1800.
MAA. (2017, October 3). Vehicle registrations in Malaysia hit 28.2 million units. Retrieved
from paultan.org: https://paultan.org/2017/10/03/vehicle-registrations-in-malaysia-hit-
28-2-million-units/
Malaysia’s new National Transport policy (NTP)2019-2030 https://www.
https://www.pmo.gov.my/2019/10/national-transport-policy-2019-2030/
Mamo, G. S. (2018). Assessment of the factors that affect customer satisfaction on service
quality: a case study in ethio telecom dawro zone. Arabian Journal Business
Management Review, 8(1), 1-5.
Martin, C., & Pranter, C. (1989). Compatibility Management: Customer-to-Customer
Relationships in Service Environments. Journal of Services Marketing, 5-15.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority. (2014). Customer satisfaction survey subway report.
Miralles Guasch, C., Avellaneda, P. G., & Cebollada i Frontera, A. (2003). Los condicionantes
de la movilidad en un nodo de la ciudad metropolitana: el caso de la Universitat
Autónoma de Barcelona.
Matsika, E., Ricci, S., Mortimer, P., Georgiev, N., & O'Neill, C. (2013). Rail vehicles,
environment, safety and security. Research in Transportation Economics, 41(1), 43-58.
Nagy, E., & Csiszár, C. (2015). Analysis of delay causes in railway passenger
transportation. Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering, 43(2), 73-80.
Narteh, B. (2013). Service quality in automated teller machines: an empirical investigation.
Managing Service Quality. 23(1), 62-89.
Nunnally, J.U.M.C., & Berstein, I.H.(1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
34
Nurdden, A., Rahmat, R. A. O. K., Ismail, A. (2007). Effect of transportation policies on model
shift from private car to public transport in Malaysia. Journal of Applied Sciences, 7(7),
pp. 1014–1018. http://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2007.1013.1018
Oh, H. (2000). The effect of brand class, brand awareness, and price on customer value and
behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(2), 136-162.
Oliver, R. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Customer. McGraw-Hill,
Boston.
Oliver, R. (2010). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer (2nd ed).
Ong, V., Yee, N. M., Hui, G. J., Kasim, N., & Hizza, I. (2015). The impact of service
automation on customer satisfaction and customer retention: An empirical study of
Malaysian rail transportation. In Proceeding of 4th global business and finance
research conference, World Business Institute, Melbourne.
Parasuraman, A, Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1998). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale
for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing. Vol. 64,
No. 1.
Piètre-Cambacédès, L., & Chaudet, C. (2010). The SEMA referential framework: avoiding
ambiguities in the terms “security” and “safety”. International Journal of Critical
Infrastructure Protection, 3(2), 55-66.
Razak, I., Nirwanto, N., & Triatmanto, B. (2016). The Impact of Product Quality and Price on
Customer Satisfaction with the Mediator of Customer Value. Journal of Marketing and
Consumer Research, 59-68.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3 [software]. Bönningstedt,
Germany: SmartPLS.
Santoso, D. S., Yajima, M., Sakamoto, K., Kubota, H. (2012). Opportunities and strategies for
increasing bus ridership in rural Japan: A case study of Hidaka City. . Retrieved from
Transport Policy. 24, pp. 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.09.005
Senbil, M., Kitamura, R., Mohamad, J., 2009. Residential location, vehicle ownership and
travel in Asia: a comparative analysis of Kei-Han-Shin and Kuala Lumpur me-
tropolitan areas. Transportation 36 (3), 325–350
Smith, M. J., and R. V. Clarke. (2000). “Crime and Public Transport.”. Retrieved from Crime
and Justice, 27, 169–233. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/ 1147664?uid=37380
32&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21103378947661.
Suryawardani, B., & Wulandari, A. (2020). Determinant factors of customers switching
behavior to customer satisfaction and loyalty in online transportation users in
bandung. JDM (Jurnal Dinamika Manajemen), 11(1), 12-26.
Shariff, S. R., Moin, N. H., & Omar, M. (2012). Location allocation modeling for healthcare
facility planning in Malaysia. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 62(4), 1000-1010.
Taylor, B. D., & Tassiello Norton, A. (2009). Paying for transportation: What’s a fair
price?. Journal of Planning Literature, 24(1), 22-36.
Thompson, K., & Schofield, P. (2007). , An investigation of the relationship between public
transport performance and destination satisfaction. Journal of Transport Geography
15(2), 136-144.
Transport Statistics Malaysia 2013. Retrieved from https://www.mot.gov.my/en/Statistik%20
Tahunan%20 Pengangkutan /Transport%20Statistics%20Malaysia%202013.pdf
Transport Statistics Malaysia 2017. Retrieved from https://www.mot.gov.my/en/Statistik%
20Tahunan%20Pengangkutan/Transport%20Statistics%20Malaysia%202017.pdf
35
Victor Ong, Ng Mei Yee, Giam Jing Hui, Nurdina Kasim and Izya Hizza. (2015). The Impact
of Service Automation on Customer Satisfaction and Customer Retention: An
Empirical Study of Malaysian Rail Transportation. Proceedings of 4th Global Business
and Finance Research Conference 25 - 27 May 2015, Marriott Hotel, Melbourne,
Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-76-4.
Wilson, A., & Zeithaml, V. (2012). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the
firm (Second European ed). Maidenhead, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Woldeamanuel, M. G., & Cyganski, R. (2011). Factor affecting traveller's satisfaction with
accessbility to public transportation. Retrieved from European Transport Conference:
https://www.worldtransitresearch.info /research/4404/
Woldeamanuel, M., & Cyganski, R. (2012). Subjective Assessment of Access to Public
Transportation.
Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Cox, J. L. (2004). The Price is Unfair! A Conceptual Framework of
Price Fairness Perception. Journal of Marketing. 68(4), 1-15.
Yazid, M.M., Ismail, R., Atiq, R. (2011). The use of non-motorized for sustainable trans-
portation in Malaysia. Procedia Eng. 20, 125–134.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1982). Consumer Response to In-Store Price Information Environment.
Journal of Consumer Research 8(4), 357-369.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1984). Issues in Conceptualizing and Measuring Consumer Response to Price.
Advances in Consumer Research Volume 11, 612-616.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1998). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End
Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing , 2-22.
Zeithaml, V.A & Bitner M.J. (2003). Services Marketing: Integrating customer focus across
the firm . 3rd Edition. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
36

Paper 342

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Paper 342

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper 342

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Global Business and Social Entrepreneurship (GBSE)

Vol. 10 : No. 28 (Jan 2024) page 19-36 | www.gbse.my | eISSN : 24621714

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TOWARDS PUBLIC

*Dr. Lee Kwee Fah

Dr. Ng Kar Yee

Andrik Nge Hau Shuen

Hong Jing Quan

Safety and Security

transportation, in particular, Chowdhury et al. (2016) discovered that commuters’ satisfaction

Following from the studies discussed above, it is proposed that:

Figure 1. Conceptual Model

Does not have any public transport nearby 14 13.2

Inferential Analysis - Measurement Model Evaluation

Table 4: Discriminant Validity

Structural Model Evaluation

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

You might also like